The Whitehall Mystery

[John G]

Hi JohnG


Really? Now how do you know that? were you standing next to him?How does removing organs and vertical cuts on an abdomen aid dismemberment?



I never said he did! where did this statement come from? Total non -sequitor.



There could be any number of reasons why a serial killer would have to change his MO based on his living/personal conditions. Perhaps a family member was staying with him when he killed on the streets.

Many serial killers lived their mommies, had roomates etc.

Its really a simple concept JohnG, but since you have to get facetious over it I guess you cant grasp the concept.

wow, a serial killer changing his MO based on circumstances-Unbeleiveable!!!

Hello Abby,

As I've said numerous times Dr Phillips states that the mutilations were carried out for purposes of disposing of the Pinchin Street Torso. And Dr Hebbert infers as much in respect of Liz Jackson: see post 877.

I understand your argument about the killer losing his dismemberment site, but the simplest explanation is that there were different killers. As I've noted before, once you start speculating to that degree almost any solution is possible: Rose Mylett, for instance, may have been a Ripper victim, even though she was strangled, because he didn't have his knife with him at the time. It's clearly a possibility, but not the simplest solution. Emma Smith may also have been a Ripper victim, I.e he may have been part of the gang that attacked her. And no, I'm not being facetious, I honestly think this a possibility, and have argued so before, although it's clearly unlikely. And, of course, it doesn't explain why he only targets the genitals as JtR, or why Kelly wasn't decapitated. Or Nichols, Chapman Eddowes for that matter: I believe Jon pointed out that Chapman's killer may have attempted a decapitation.

I apologize if you think I was being facetious. In all honesty, I actually have great respect for you as a poster, and always consider your opinions seriously, even though we may disagree on occasion!

[Fisherman]

Only one Torso victim uterus was missing, or recorded as missing, and that my gut have been lost in transportation.

The jury is out on the number of missing uteri.
And the first question?

[Fisherman]

A simpler solution to explain these differences is that they were different killers: Occam's Razor.

Simplicity also dictates that many murders of the - roughly or exactly - same type of victims in the same town during the same period of time - roughly - are more likely to have just the one perpetrator. So the angle governs who of us have simplicity on our side.
Putting it differently, using Occam´s razor will leave one cheek on you unshaven, John.

[John G]

The jury is out on the number of missing uteri.
And the first question?

Hello Fisherman,

As I said in my reply to Abby, it does seem that the medical professionals believed that the mutilations were part of the disposal/dismemberment process.

[Debra A]

Where does it say it was absent?

John,

Hebbert noted that the lower parts of the colon were absent, as well as the pelvic viscera.
The uterus is certainly part of the pelvic viscera, as is the vagina and cervix.

[Fisherman]

Hello Fisherman,

As I said in my reply to Abby, it does seem that the medical professionals believed that the mutilations were part of the disposal/dismemberment process.

How, John?

[RockySullivan]

Where does it say it was absent?

Whitehall Inquest: Dr. Bond "The uterus was absent"

http://www.casebook.org/official_documents/inquests/inquest_whitehall.html

[Dane_F]

Hello Dane,

I believe that Evans and Skinner (2000) argued that the cut towards the vagina indicated that the knife had slipped. This observation reminds us that we should be cautious about reading too much into things. Dr Phillips was clearly of the opinion that the mutilation were inflicted for purposes of disposing of the body. Dr Phillips was a medical expert who was heavily involved in the Whitechapel cases and his views deserve to be respected.

There were also indications that the Pinchin Street victims throat wasn't cut, unlike all of the C5 victims. Moreover, no genital mutilation, which appeared to he an important signature characteristic of JtR. And, of course, no organs removed.

The knife slipped from near the neck to all the way not only to the pubes but also hitting the vagina and ending up finishing in the left inner thing area? But wasn't the torso killer an organized killer as opposed to the frenzied JTR? I don't see how an organized killer, since you've argued that's what he was, would make such a frenzied-unorganized gash down the entire length of the torso.

Then there's the issue of the gash not being just on one victim but multiple victims had that same cut. This again doesn't point to a slipped knife.

As far as Dr Phillips goes was he specifically talking about the Pinchin Torso gash from neck to pubes or was he referring to the head and legs being removed? Please link to the Dr Phillips information so I can see what you're talking about. If he was speaking to the torso murders in general and not about the specific cut to the Pinchin St Torso then obviously his opinion isn't really relevant in this case.

Where was it said the Pinchin St Torso's neck wasn't cut? The new article I linked to specifically said the neck was cut in one slice, then a saw was used on the bone. I haven't had a chance to look at the autopsy report, was it found there? Please quote it so I can if that's the case.

John, why do you keep saying there was no genital mutilation? I have already quoted from the autopsy that the vagina was cut into. Now maybe you believe this was by accident (highly. Highly unlikely) but even if it was an accident the vagina was still cut into. You cannot simply pretend it did not happen.

You also avoided my question, How was making a long gash down the entire length of the torso speeding up or aiding the dismemberment?

John, it seems like you are so wrapped up in arguing that the two killers were different that you are ignoring actual evidence and keep changing how the torso killer was to try and avoid it at all costs. I have no idea how much the killings were linked, if at all, but I cannot see how if you are honestly being objective you can argue some of the points you have made.

[John G]

The knife slipped from near the neck to all the way not only to the pubes but also hitting the vagina and ending up finishing in the left inner thing area? But wasn't the torso killer an organized killer as opposed to the frenzied JTR? I don't see how an organized killer, since you've argued that's what he was, would make such a frenzied-unorganized gash down the entire length of the torso.

Then there's the issue of the gash not being just on one victim but multiple victims had that same cut. This again doesn't point to a slipped knife.

As far as Dr Phillips goes was he specifically talking about the Pinchin Torso gash from neck to pubes or was he referring to the head and legs being removed? Please link to the Dr Phillips information so I can see what you're talking about. If he was speaking to the torso murders in general and not about the specific cut to the Pinchin St Torso then obviously his opinion isn't really relevant in this case.

Where was it said the Pinchin St Torso's neck wasn't cut? The new article I linked to specifically said the neck was cut in one slice, then a saw was used on the bone. I haven't had a chance to look at the autopsy report, was it found there? Please quote it so I can if that's the case.

John, why do you keep saying there was no genital mutilation? I have already quoted from the autopsy that the vagina was cut into. Now maybe you believe this was by accident (highly. Highly unlikely) but even if it was an accident the vagina was still cut into. You cannot simply pretend it did not happen.

You also avoided my question, How was making a long gash down the entire length of the torso speeding up or aiding the dismemberment?

John, it seems like you are so wrapped up in arguing that the two killers were different that you are ignoring actual evidence and keep changing how the torso killer was to try and avoid it at all costs. I have no idea how much the killings were linked, if at all, but I cannot see how if you are honestly being objective you can argue some of the points you have made.

Hello Dane,

The cut towards the vagina indicated that the knife had slipped (Keppel, 2005). Donald Swanson concluded that there was no genital mutilations in the Torso cases. In fact, th s is what he said in a report to the Home Office after the Pinchin Street Torso inquest had finished: "What becomes most apparent is the absence of the attack on the genitals as in the series of Whitechapel murders beginning at Bucks Row and ending in Miller's Court". Considering he was leading the investigation his opinions should be taken extremely seriously.

As I've stated many times now Dr Phillips was of the opinion that the mutilation were carried out for purposes of disposing of the body. However, as I have also noted, Commissioner Monro argued that the wound leading to the vagina was intended to simulate the Whitechapel murders, which is why I have also argued that Pinchin Street may have been intended as a parody of the earlier Whitechapel crimes.

Here's another quote from Evans and Rumbellow (2006), referring to the Pinchin Street Torso: " There was a gash to the abdomen but this appeared to have been inflicted when dismemberment had taken place"

I have cited this before, about the Pinchin Street case, but i'll do so again: "The trunk was full of blood indicating that a haemorrhage had not occurred. This also indicated that the throat could not have been cut. (Keppel, 2005, citing Evans and Skinner (2000)

No medical professional at the time attempted to link these crimes, quite the reverse. Dr Clarke, who assisted Dr Phillips, for example, was adamant that the Pinchin Street victim was not linked to the Whitechapel crimes.

[Observer]

Hello Dane,

The cut towards the vagina indicated that the knife had slipped (Keppel, 2005).

Hey John

If Keppel (2005) told you to jump over a cliff would you? I'm starting to feel as if I know Keppel(2005) rather quite well he's made that many appearances in this thread. Strange surname also (2005), is he one of those new age thinkers, who change their names by deed pole ? Seriously John do you not think it's time you considered not to rely too much on the experts opinions regarding the "Torso Murders" ? They seem to be getting you in a whole heap of trouble. They just don't agree on certain points, and this is where you are at a loss to answer the questions asked of you by some posters.

Please don't take this post as a personal attack, and forgive the smidgen of ribbing.

Observer

[RockySullivan]

Hello Dane,

The cut towards the vagina indicated that the knife had slipped (Keppel, 2005). Donald Swanson concluded that there was no genital mutilations in the Torso cases. In fact, th s is what he said in a report to the Home Office after the Pinchin Street Torso inquest had finished: "What becomes most apparent is the absence of the attack on the genitals as in the series of Whitechapel murders beginning at Bucks Row and ending in Miller's Court". Considering he was leading the investigation his opinions should be taken extremely seriously.

As I've stated many times now Dr Phillips was of the opinion that the mutilation were carried out for purposes of disposing of the body. However, as I have also noted, Commissioner Monro argued that the wound leading to the vagina was intended to simulate the Whitechapel murders, which is why I have also argued that Pinchin Street may have been intended as a parody of the earlier Whitechapel crimes.

Here's another quote from Evans and Rumbellow (2006), referring to the Pinchin Street Torso: " There was a gash to the abdomen but this appeared to have been inflicted when dismemberment had taken place"

I have cited this before, about the Pinchin Street case, but i'll do so again: "The trunk was full of blood indicating that a haemorrhage had not occurred. This also indicated that the throat could not have been cut. (Keppel, 2005, citing Evans and Skinner (2000)

No medical professional at the time attempted to link these crimes, quite the reverse. Dr Clarke, who assisted Dr Phillips, for example, was adamant that the Pinchin Street victim was not linked to the Whitechapel crimes.

John you seem to think that citing OPINIONS overrides the FACTS for some strange reason. Just because Evans and Rumbelow wrote " There was a gash to the abdomen but this appeared to have been inflicted when dismemberment had taken place" doesn't mean that information is anyway accurate. Rumbelow and Evans are pulling that out of their asses. " The cut towards the vagina indicated that the knife had slipped (Keppel, 2005) Dude that isn't worth ****. **** Keppel. You can cite all the Ripper authors opinions you want but that doesnt make you any less wrong then when you quote Swanson saying "There was no genital mutilation to any of the torsos". And frankly I'm not surprised to be Swanson making glaring inaccuracies about the case he's in charge of. If he couldn't see the obvious similarites between the torsos and ripper victims its clearly because he didnt even have the basic facts straight.

[Observer]

It seems that Rocky and myself are somehow connected in a telepathic way.

[Observer]

I'd doubt Rocky if Swanson had read the detailed accounts of the injuries to the Torso victims. I'd say he's basing his assumptions that there were no genital mutilation on the fact that the doctors believed the dismemberment of the Torso victims were performed solely as a means of dispersal.

[Observer]

As for Keppel believing that long incision was a slip of the knife. Well yes errrrr hmmmmmm

[John Wheat]

None of the Ripper murders remotely resemble the Torso Murders with the exception of Mary Jane Kelly so perhaps the question everyone should be asking is not wether The Ripper were one and the same but wether the Torso Killer murdered Mary Jane Kelly? I don't believe he did but find it plausible.